Madras High Court Reserves Orders On Netflix India's Application To Reject Suit Filed By Dhanush Against Nayanthara's Documentary

Justice Abdul Quddhose reserved orders after hearing Senior Advocate Parthasarathy (for Netflix India) and Senior Advocate PS Raman (for Wunderbar Films).

Dhanush, who produced the movie “Naanum Rowdy Daan” has approached the court claiming that some behind-the-scene footages from the movie was used unauthorisedly in the making of Nayanthara's documentary “Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale”. Since Netflix India's office is in Mumbai, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court, he had moved an application seeking leave to sue the company in the High Court which was allowed.

Seeking to revoke the leave to sue, Netflix India argued that as per the provisions of the Copyright Act and the Letter Patent Act, leave has to be obtained for suing any of the defendants or any part of the cause of action arising out of the court's jurisdiction. It was argued that the plaintiff in the present case had obtained leave to sue only the 5^th Defendant (Los Gatos - Netflix India) and only because the office was situated outside the jurisdiction of the court. He thus argued that the plaintiff ought to have obtained leave against all the defendants.

It was further submitted that the plaintiff could have filed the suit at the place where his office was situated, which in this case was Kanchipuram as his office is in Perungudi, or he could have filed the suit where the cause of action arose, which would be Bombay since the documentary was released through Netflix India, having office at Mumbai. Thus, it was argued that Wunderbar should have either filed the suit in Kanchipuram or Mumbai and not in Chennai.

“You've filed the suit under Section 62 of the Copyright Act. Then you choose to ignore Section 62 and proceed with leave to sue under Clause 12. This is neither here nor there. If you invoke Section 62, it should've been Kanchipuram. If you invoke Clause 12, it should've been Mumbai. Then how can you choose to sue in Chennai?” Parthasarathy argued.

It was also argued that a picture of Nayanthara and Vignesh Sivan from the sets of the movie had been uploaded way back in 2020 and the plaintiff had not taken any steps against the same. It was submitted that the plaint itself was filed one week after the documentary was released which would show that there was no urgency warranting bypassing Section 12A (Pre-Suit Mediation) under the Commercial Courts Act. Thus, it was argued that the plaint itself should be rejected for non-compliance of Section 12A.

On the other hand, Raman argued that anything that happened in the movie set belonged to the person who put in money for the same, which in this case was the Plaintiff. It was submitted that everything from the movie set was a bundle of copyright belonging to the petitioner and could not be replaced without his permission.

Raman further submitted that even though a photo was posted online in 2020, there was no cause of action at that time. He argued that the cause of action arose only when there was a copyright infringement, which in this case was the unauthorized usage of behind-the-scenes footage. He added that as soon as the trailer was released, an email was sent to the defendants to desist using the footage. He also added that the suit was not filed till the release of the documentary since it was only then that the plaintiff could know what part of the footage had been used in the documentary.

He also pointed out that Nayanthara had signed a contract, for valuable consideration, in which it was agreed that showing Nayanthara in the costume and hairstyle would be the producer's copyright. Thus, it was argued that anything done by Nayanthara in connection with the film would belong to the producer Dhanush.

It was also argued that the agreement was signed in Chennai and at the relevant point of time, the office of the Plaintiff was also in Chennai and thus the suit was maintainable. Further, since the trailer of the documentary was released in Chennai and the infringement also took place in Chennai, it was argued that the Madras High Court was the appropriate forum to hear the case.

It was argued that the Principle of Election would not apply in the present case since Section 62 was only giving an additional jurisdiction along with Section 20 of the Act and Clause 12 of the Letter Patent Act. It was argued that leave could be revoked only in specific circumstances which were not present in the present case.

Case Title: Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v Wunderbar Films Private Limited

Case No: A 6748 of 2024